Althouse: "The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with the technology industry and blocked a controversial Texas law that bars large social media platforms..."

June 1, 2022

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with the technology industry and blocked a controversial Texas law that bars large social media platforms..."

"... like Facebook and Twitter from removing posts based on the viewpoints they express. The justices divided 5-4 in an ideologically scrambled vote.... When Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed the law last September, he declared that 'conservative viewpoints in Texas cannot be banned on social media.' Tech companies challenged the law, saying it violates their First Amendment right to control what speech appears on their platforms.... Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton [argued that because the law] only requires social media platforms to serve customers on an equal footing... [and that they are] 'common carriers' – a legal term for businesses that transport people, goods, or services and cannot pick and choose among their customers.... In his dissent, Alito explained that the court should not reinstate [the district court's] injunction unless the technology groups can show that, under existing law, they are likely to prevail on the merits of their challenge. But whether the groups can make that showing, Alito suggested, 'is quite unclear,' because both the law and the business models for social media platforms are 'novel.'"

Writes Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog.

27 comments:

Howard said...: That's a mixed company verdict.; 6/1/22, 6:19 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: Facebook shadow-banned Diamond and Silk for violating community standards -- for supporting Trump while being Black.

When questioned about this by Republicans at a Congressional hearing, Facebook owner's Mark Zuckerberg was compelled to admit that this particular shadow-banning had perhaps been "a mistake". Subsequently, he apparently removed that shadow-ban. (But who knows for sure whether a shadow-ban has been removed.)

For sure, Zuckerberg intends to re-impose his shadow-ban of Diamond and Silk if Trump runs again. The Texas law would have complicated that intention.; 6/1/22, 6:29 AM
gilbar said...: so, they ARE publishers, then?; 6/1/22, 6:31 AM
Temujin said...: How would this affect the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado? Is he compelled to make cakes for something or someone he does not agree with?; 6/1/22, 6:36 AM
tim maguire said...: Social media companies can't exist in competition with other companies--the only reason any one goes there is because that's where everyone else is. As a result, new companies spring up not by competing with other companies, but by finding an unserved niche. So we have Facebook, which is Friendster 2.0; it's how friends and family keep in touch. Then we have Twitter for quick short messages, Instagram for pics, Tik Tok for short videos. Everybody does something different from everybody else because if two do exactly the same thing, one will thrive while the other withers.

Monopoly is in their business model. Legal treatment should reflect that reality.; 6/1/22, 6:56 AM
Tom T. said...: This is a temporary measure, regarding enforcement during the litigation. The law will still go up to the Supreme Court on its merits.; 6/1/22, 7:31 AM
Browndog said...: Amy Coney Barrett siding with the power of the government over the freedoms of the citizenry remains consistent.

At least Trump got a woman on the court. A huge victory for The Right on the diversity battlefield.; 6/1/22, 7:51 AM
Václav Patrik Šulik said...: It's not surprising that Breyer joined this - he's never been a supporter of the First Amendment.
Sotomayor is a Democrat party hack, so she's always going to rule for her party (show me when she's ever ruled against the Dems) - no surprise.
Roberts and his shadow-puppet, Kavanaugh, also ruled in favor of big business - no surprise.
I'm surprised and disappointed by Barrett - I'd follow up with her request to "read the decision" - but there's nothing there. I guess she's busy writing her well-compensated book to stick to her day job.; 6/1/22, 8:13 AM
Browndog said...: Two technology trade groups representing social media companies affected by the law came to the Supreme Court on May 13, asking the justices to reinstate Pittman’s injunction. They argued that the law violates “bedrock First Amendment principles” that permit private entities, including websites, to choose “whether and how to disseminate speech.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton fired back, arguing that H.B. 20 does not violate the First Amendment because it doesn’t regulate speech.

The majority did not explain the reasoning behind its brief order. Alito wrote a six-page dissent arguing that the court’s intervention to block the law is premature.

In his dissent, Alito explained that the court should not reinstate Pittman’s injunction unless the technology groups can show that, under existing law, they are likely to prevail on the merits of their challenge.; 6/1/22, 8:30 AM
jim5301 said...: Everyone okay with a law requiring a publisher of Christian books to publish books by Satan worshippers? Twitter should be able to decide what appears on its platform. I believe Trump just started his own social media site. And Jason Miller started one as well. So what's the issue? If they can't compete that's their problem.

Don't we believe in Capitalism and Competition and Business Freedom from Government Control anymore Althouse readers?; 6/1/22, 8:35 AM
n.n said...: the law and the business models for social media platforms are 'novel.'

Not a all. The law governs markets and publication. The business models are based on a platform (e.g. Amazon), where the both the consumer of services and content are the product.; 6/1/22, 8:38 AM
Dude1394 said...: Yes they are publishers. Sue accordingly.; 6/1/22, 8:41 AM
Daniel12 said...: Do we love billionaires or rabid conspiracy theorists deciding on speech in our society?

What a choice.; 6/1/22, 8:44 AM
Michael K said...: I assume the majority included Roberts.; 6/1/22, 10:18 AM
stlcdr said...: I guess they don't have to 'bake that cake'.; 6/1/22, 10:27 AM
Yancey Ward said...: This ruling is bad news for the tech platforms and the people who support their censorship activities, in my opinion. They are going to be forced to choose soon- publishers or common-carriers- they can't be both is what I take from these varied opinions- especially from the 3 conservatives who formed the backbone of the majority ruling- you can add them to Alito and Thomas when the time comes, while Kagan will switch the other way. I see a 6-3 ruling coming that guts Section 230.; 6/1/22, 10:40 AM
mikee said...: Abbot now has the talking point that social media does indeed block conservative viewpoints and in a few more years his law will be back before the Supremes as a matured issue, which will win then on the merits. Unless the tech platforms are publishers, in which case they are responsible for all content on their platforms, and thus they face bigger problems than conservative viewpoints being censored.; 6/1/22, 11:04 AM
Jupiter said...: "Tech companies challenged the law, saying it violates their First Amendment right to control what speech appears on their platforms."

So, does your phone company have the right to control what speech appears on their platform?; 6/1/22, 12:50 PM
Greg The Class Traitor said...: I guess I no longer care if some left wing crazy decides to attack Kavanaugh or Barrett after being encouraged to do so on a social media company that only censors my sort of people.

What a craptastic decision.

For some reason, I expect that none of the people who whined about the "rocket docket" WRT Texas SB8 are going to complain about this SCOTUS "rocket docket" decision; 6/1/22, 12:59 PM
Scott said...: Section 230 says that social media platforms can have their cake and eat it too -- they can exercise editorial authority and still be protected from libel suits when they do.

This seems like bad law. And here, Texas is responding to bad law with more bad law.

Repeal Section 230. Let the fuckers get sued out of business.; 6/1/22, 3:34 PM
Achilles said...: They are allowed to ban and censor and act as publishers.

So now they are publishers and can be held liable for any opinions that they allow to be posted on their forum correct?; 6/1/22, 3:37 PM
gilbar said...: jim5301 said...
Everyone okay with a law requiring a baker of Christian cakes to bake cakes by Satan worshippers?

fify!; 6/1/22, 6:43 PM
Browndog said...: You will find no relief from the march of the communist agenda from the courts.

That should be apparent after 50 years.; 6/1/22, 7:26 PM
Greg The Class Traitor said...: jim5301 said...
Everyone okay with a law requiring a publisher of Christian books to publish books by Satan worshippers?

1: Publishers aren't common carries

2: Section 230 only protects a website when it's allowing someone else to use their voice on the website.
So if everything on the website is "the voice of the site owner", then Section 230 should not apply, and all those social media companies need to be legally liable for any libel on their sites
Just like that Christian publisher is liable for everything in every book they publish

3: The Pruneyard was not allowed to prevent people from using the Pruneyard's property in order to spread their political beliefs.
Even if the owners of the Pruneyard hated those beliefs

Since SCOTUS approved that, there's clearly no legitimate grounds for Twitter or Facebook or Netchoice to complain about someone using the company's property to spread their personal political beliefs; 6/1/22, 7:54 PM
Gahrie said...: Facebook and Twitter should be regulated as public utilities.; 6/1/22, 8:40 PM
Josephbleau said...: This is just the SCOTUS post leak “We also find for Democrats sometimes” ploy.; 6/2/22, 1:37 AM
Jupiter said...: "Abbot now has the talking point that social media does indeed block conservative viewpoints and in a few more years his law will be back before the Supremes as a matured issue, which will win then on the merits."

Yeah, well. A few more years, hey?

"I want to talk to my lawyer!"
"Easily done! He is in the next cell!"; 6/2/22, 9:38 PM